Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

FAMILY PROCEEDINGS: Re R (Secure Editing of Documents)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:20 PM
Slug : re-r-secure-editing-of-documents
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 14, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 89379

(Family Division; Peter Jackson QC sitting as a Deputy High Court judge; 14 April 2007)

It was the court's responsibility to ensure that confidential information was not given out as a side effect of legal proceedings. In the instant case there had been a gross breach of the mother's right to respect for her private and family life, in that notwithstanding an order that all contact details were to be omitted from any documents filed and served on the father, who had been registered at Level 3 under the Multi-Agency Public Protection arrangements, the father had been served with documents containing the mother's mobile phone number, her new surname and her new address. The President of the Family Division had approved the following procedure wherever confidential information was to be protected. The court was to identify any case in this category, making a clear statement that special restrictions applied to the case, and directing that information shall not be contained in any document (not merely allow the information to be withheld), taking care not to make unnecessarily wide orders for documentary disclosure because of the difficulty of editing large amounts of documentation accurately. The court should also spell out the chain of possession so that one appropriately selected party gathered the documents and released them only after careful checking; responsibility for the process should be given to one or more named individuals, such as the guardian's solicitor (the solicitor for the protected party could be given the opportunity to check the edited documents before they were sent); the editing/checking task ought to be carried out by someone with knowledge of the case, including the details of the information to be protected, and of the importance of the task, which was not an administrative one.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from